Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:01:47PM -0500, b. f. wrote:
> >> Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
> >> behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
> >> choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Greg
> >>
> 
> >I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an
> >override.
> 
> >Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does?
> 
> I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
> conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check,
> regardless of when it is made.  A late check is preferable to using
> DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in
> the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another.

Best:

    check for conflicts early, error out early if there are conflicts so
    one doesn't waste hours compiling something and checking/installing
    dependencies and so on

Middling:

    check for conflicts late

Worst:

    don't check for conflicts at all

Yeah, sounds about right.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100116/fc771f17/attachment.pgp